Forum Moderators: martinibuster
For every one publisher who gets a ban for 'accidentally' over clicking, I'll bet there's 25 where it was deliberate.
And that's fraud not only against Google, but against the advertiser who got clicked.
If Google goes gently, how many more would there be? Thousands.
Google has to keep client confidence by being Mr Tough Guy - and as you've proved, they can make exceptions.
im not asking google to be gentle, they are losing millions and the advertisors too, im just aking why not to add a feature to hide the ads from bad people
Because such a system would have to 'learn' - how many clicks does it take to say someone is 'bad'?
After a few tests, the clickers would know to stop just before they got banned. And every idiot in the world would get in on the act.
As I say, almost all the 'overclickers' are cheats; the current system sorts them out, with no incentive to keep trying. Why go for a softer system?
I would be very surprise if google would ban you because 1 person went on your website and clicked the banner multiple times. I'm sure something else was triggered in their system. Patterns, your ips, cicles, etc.
I had to develop such a system for one of my system ... the only thing I can be sure of is the user "IP" address (and even then) and/or cookies I installed on their browser.
CCF
lets say 10 clicks in some 10 minutes! and the clicker got banned ( the ads will hide for him) ... i cant see another better solution against click fraud than this, just banning publishers is very rude
So the clicker gets 1000 logons and clicks nine times each? Or gets a thousand robots to do it?
The current system is MUCH better than that, and leaves no incentives for cheats.
And it's not about being rude or polite - it's about business, and other people's money.
The only people who'd support your idea, I reckon, is cheats and frauds. No advertiser would , and I see no reason why an honest publisher would.
Drop it, that's my tip ;)
The current system is MUCH better than that, and leaves no incentives for cheats.
But I do know you got a second chance.
What I can't understand is why you want to give a second chance to cheats and frauds. The system worked for you; it works for me. What you suggest would be worse for both of us, and probably for almost everyone else - except the cheats.
Why do you want to help these people? They nearly got you banned forever!
What I can't understand is why you want to give a second chance to cheats and frauds.
The system worked for you; it works for me. What you suggest would be worse for both of us, and probably for almost everyone else - except the cheats.
also you told something about the new adsense system, it is now more efficace against bad clickers?
the only thing I can be sure of is the user "IP" address
I believe Google checks much more than just IP. It can be browser identifier, cookies, screen resolution, OS, etc. etc. etc.
You could still use tracking software to know ips of users clicking your ads. Agree "go to www.example.com" (the part which seems to disappear after changes) would be useful, but trackers are useful in combating click fraud even without that info. Ok, Google may ban you, but you may have an ip of the offender for appeal.
OT: AOL is a pain ... yes, it changes IP addresses dynamically between requests. I am certain google track a bunch of things and they uses cookies. But how is that good against pirates that know how to manipulate those.
noahukr ... stop panicking. It sounds like if you are scared to be ban. I wonder why. Stop jumping around. Follow the rules and you shouldn't get banned. If you try to "filter" by yourself, you may get it wrong and google will see you as trying to cheat.
noahukr ... stop panicking. It sounds like if you are scared to be ban. I wonder why. Stop jumping around. Follow the rules and you shouldn't get banned. If you try to "filter" by yourself, you may get it wrong and google will see you as trying to cheat.
ALSO: Don't go by what others are doing. Just because xyz.com hasn't been banned for doing something you know is against the rules, doesn't mean they won't be eventually.